CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sEAA66BE7 { width:32.73pt; display:inline-block } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFD65D78B { width:29.86pt; display:inline-block } .s29789228 { width:21.63pt; display:inline-block } .s2C9F5F8 { width:18.41pt; display:inline-block } .s1B758CC1 { width:27.73pt; display:inline-block } .s5F6224 { width:11.1pt; display:inline-block } .sE9BA8711 { width:3.31pt; display:inline-block } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD20E696B { width:19.52pt; display:inline-block } .s99CEB220 { width:26.08pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 18 May 2000 Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain (just satisfaction – striking out) - 38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98 et al. Judgment 25.5.2000 [Section IV] Article 41 Just satisfaction Agreement between the parties: struck out In a judgment of 25 January 2000 (see Information Note No. 14), the Court held that on account of the particularly inflexible interpretation of a procedural rule by the domestic courts the applicants had been deprived of the right of access to a court with a view to obtaining adjudication of their compensation claims following the annulment of a ministerial decree reducing the profit margins of pharmacists in Spain, and that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1. As the question of application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved that part of the question and invited the Government to submit to it, within three months, its written observations on the issue and asked the parties to inform it of any agreement they might reach. The parties subsequently reached a friendly settlement entailing payment to the applicants of the following sums in compensation:   M. Juan MIRAGALL ESCOLANO     3 204 629 pesetas   M me María Cinta ANDREU ROCAMORA   3 166 977 pesetas   M me   María Victoria BONET VILAR     1 020 016 pesetas   M. Valentín GÓMEZ LÓPEZ       1 265 893 pesetas   M. José Antonio SORIANO RAMS     1 203 846 pesetas   M. Francisco MONTFORTE SANCHO     2 236 887 pesetas   M me   María Dolores GARCÍA MORENO   1 772 678 pesetas   M. José ROIG ESPERT       1 759 173 pesetas   M. Salvador ROIG ESPERT       6 999 318 pesetas   M me Ana María ICARDO GARCÍA     983 053 pesetas     © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes